Urban Transport: Introduction - MIT OpenCourseWare · • Urban Transport Today • Urban Transport Policy • The Land Use-Transport link • Road congestion as a Policy Driver •

Nigel H.M. Wilson 1.201, Fall 2006Lecture 10

1

Urban Transport: Introduction


2

Outline

• Urban Transport Today

• Urban Transport Policy• The Land Use-Transport link• Road congestion as a Policy Driver• Transit as a Critical Element

• Arguments in support of Transit

Thanks to Mikel Murga for providing many of the figures throughout this presentation


3

US Urban Transport TodayTrends in Modal Split for Daily Travel in the United States (1969-2001)

Mode of Transportation 1969 1977 1983 1990 1995 2001

Auto 81.8 83.7 82.0 87.1 86.5 86.4

Transit 3.2 2.6 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6

Walk n/a 9.3 8.5 7.2 5.4 8.6

Bicycle n/a 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.9

Other 5.0 3.7 6.5 3.0 5.4 2.5

Source: Socioeconomics of Urban Travel: Evidence from the 2001 NHTSby John Pucher and John L. Renne. Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 57, No. 3, Summer 2003 (49–77). Eno Transportation Foundation, Inc., Washington, DC.

Federal Highway Administration, Nationwide Personal Transportation Surveys 1969, 1977, 1983, 1990, and 1995; and National Household Travel Survey, 2001.


4

Transit Share of Commute for Metropolitan Areas Over 2 Million in Population (2000)

Sources: U.S. 2000 Census Journey to Work (http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/c2kbr-33.pdf) andU.S. Department of Transportation Census Transportation Planning Package http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/jtw/

http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/c2kbr-33.pdf

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/jtw/


5

US Urban Transport Today: Metropolitan AreasTrends in the Modal Split of the Home-to-Work Journey (1990-2000)

Source: Journey to Work Trends in the United States and its Major Metropolitan Areas 1960-2000

Modal Split %1990-2000 Car Transit Non-Motorized Work at homeGreater Boston 82.7-82.7 8.6-9.0 6.2-5.1 2.5-3.2

Chicago Counties 79.5-81.5 13.4-11.5 4.9-4.2 2.1-2.9

NY-NJ-CT-PA 65.8-65.7 24.8-24.9 7.0-6.4 2.4-3.0San Francisco -Oakland 81.3-81.0 9.3-9.5 5.9-5.5 3.5-4.1Washington DC-Baltimore 81.5-83.2 11.0-9.4 4.8-3.9 2.7-3.5


6

US Urban Transport Today: Significant Influences

• Suburbanization of homes, employment and attractors

• High car ownership and low operation costs

• Extensive urban road infrastructure

• Government policies towards roads and public transport


7

Suburbanization:2000 Journey to Work

Jobs in:

Homes in: Central City Suburbs Total Homes

Central City 28.2 (27%) 9.2 (9%) 37.4 (36%)

Total Jobs 49.0 (48%) 53.8 (52%)

Suburbs 20.8 (20%) 44.6 (43%) 65.4 (64%)

Jobs in:

65%16%Suburbs

14%5%Central City

SuburbsCentral CityHomes in:

Jobs in:

2%6%Suburbs

6%14%Central City

SuburbsCentral CityHomes in:

A. Total Trips (in millions of daily trips)

B. Share of 1990-2000 Increase C. Public Transport Mode Share


8

US Urban Transport Today

• High car ownership levels• 600 cars per 1000 population

• High car usage• 10,000 veh-km per capita annually

• Low taxes, fees and user charges for car ownership and use• Sales taxes range from 5-8%• Users pay only 60% of road infrastructure costs in US• Petrol taxes are from 10-20% of European levels


9

• Urban parking supply is relatively widely availableand often free• 95% of car commuters enjoy free parking• 380 parking spaces per 1000 central city workers in 10 largest

US cities

• Highly developed urban road system• 6.6 metres of road per capita in 10 largest US cities; 3 times

European levels

US Urban Transport Today

Source: The Urban Transportation Crisis in Europe and North America, by John Pucher and Christian LeFevre, 1996.


10

US Urban Transport Today:A Critical Assessment

• Public transport has been stabilized

• Many new rail initiatives in operation or under construction

• Some real success stories: New York City, Houston, Seattle

• Institutional change is occurring slowly

• Retention of political support


11

The Land Use-Transport Link

• Transit makes high density central city possible

• Even in the US with transit serving only 2% of all person trips, it is critically important in shaping the big cities

• The home to work commute in Boston (and in other American cities like Chicago, New York, San Francisco..) shows the critical role of transit in its downtown

• The downtown job density makes it impossible to rely solely on the automobile


12


• As a chicken and egg problem, job density and parking restrictions go hand in hand

• But parking restrictions do not impede economic development

• In fact, Boston development since its EPA led parking freeze in 1973 has been very impressive


13

The Land Use-Transport Link:Boston’s 1973 Parking Freeze and …

Photographs of the Charles River and the Boston skyline. Imagesremoved due to copyright restrictions.


14


• Transit as a critical component of cities:• Economic Competitiveness• Quality of the Urban space

• In parallel, it requires:• Adequate parking policies• Substantial priority that can be easily implemented


15

Road Congestion as the Policy Driver

Front cover images from the following books:

Downs, Anthony. Stuck in Traffic: Coping With Peak-Hour Traffic Congestion.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1992. ISBN: 0815719248.

Downs, Anthony. Still Stuck in Traffic: Coping With Peak-Hour Traffic Congestion.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1994. ISBN: 0815719299.

Images removed due to copyright restrictions.


16

Road Congestion as the Policy DriverCo

sts a

nd B

enef

itsEstimated Costs and Benefits, Ignoring Generated Traffic

Highway Investments:Business as Usual

Project CostsTravel Time SavingsVehicle Operating Cost Savings

Years

Costs

and

Ben

efits

Estimated Costs and Benefits, Considering Generated Traffic

Generated Travel BenefitsVehicle Operating Cost SavingsTravel Time SavingsInduced Travel External CostsDiverted Trip External CostsProject Expenses

Years

Figure by MIT OCW.

Road Congestion as a Policy Driver in spite of the system complexity

Delay

Road Construction

Travel Time

Trips per Day

Travel Desire

Adequacy of Public Transit

Pressure to Reduce Congestion

+

+

++

+

+ +

+

+++ +

+ +

+

+

+

+

+

+-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-+

+

-

-

Highway Capacity Capacity Expansion

Open the Hinterlands

Size of Region within Desired Travel Time

Discretionary Trips

Extra Miles

Delay

Delay

Delay

Delay

Average Trip Length

Cars in Region

Population and Economic Activityof Region

Cars per Region

Public Transit Ridership

Public Transit Network

Public Transit Fares

Public Transit Revenue

Road Congestion as a Policy Driver in Spite of the System Complexity

Public Transit Costs

PT Capacity Expansion

Cost Cutting

Route Expansion

FareIncrease

Take the bus?

Choke off Ridership

Can't get there on the buses

Move to the Burbs

Traffic Volume

Attractiveness of Driving

Public Transit Deficit

Figure by MIT OCW.


18

Transit as a critical element

• The high density of jobs and residences needed for a livable environment is only possible with an efficient transit system

• Transit can provide not only high economic efficiency, but an attractive and safe environment

• All high quality urban cores have a high percentage of non motorized and transit trips


19

The higher the density, the higher…

… the percentage of sustainable modesSource: UITP Millenium Database

020

U.S.A. Western Europe

40Density (Inhabitants/Hectare)

80 160 320

20

Mod

al C

hoic

e (%

Pub

lic T

rans

port

-C

yclin

g-W

alki

ng)

40

60

80

100All Cities

Density (Inhabitants/Hectare) vs Modal Choice (% Public Transport + Cycling + Walking)

Figure by MIT OCW.


20

The cost of a balanced system

Economic sustainabilitySource: UITP Millenium Database

0,00 10 20 30

Modal Choice (% Public Transport - Cycling - Walking)

40 50 60 70 80 90

4,0

U.S.A.8,0

12,0

Tran

spor

t Cos

t (%

GD

P)

16,0

20,0

Developed Cities

Modal Choice (% Public Transport + Cycling + Walking) vs Transport Cost (% GDP)

Western Europe

Figure by MIT OCW.


21

The high price of road fatalities

Source: UITP Millenium Database

Modal Choice (% Public Transport - Cycling - Walking)

00 10 20 30

50

Fata

litie

s (P

er M

illio

n In

habi

tant

s)

U.S.A.

40 50 60 70 80 90

100

150

200

250

Modal Choice (% Public Transport + Cycling + Walking) vs Fatalities

Western Europe

Developed Cities

Figure by MIT OCW.


22

Traditional Arguments Supporting Transit

• Equity:• Access for those who cannot or do not choose to drive

• Congestion:• The need for a high-quality alternative

• Land use influence:• Public transport is necessary, but not sufficient to change trends

• Environmental:• Car technology strategies are effective

• Energy:• Car technology strategies are effective


23

Other Arguments Supporting Transit

• Transit allows agglomeration of economic activity in cities:• New York, Boston, San Francisco, etc. could not have developed

without transit

• The current contribution of earlier investments in heavy rail is not valued today appropriately

• New investments bound to have a lasting impact – thus the need for a long view


24


• Transit is a most effective tool to decrease external costsin cities:• These costs may exceed $1,000 per person per year

(Ref: External Costs Study for the Basque Country, 2006)

• They correspond in order of importance to accident-related costs, impacts on human health, congestion, noise impacts and the current market value of global warming


25


• Business as usual translates into annual congestion cost today of more than $60 billion/ year (AASHTO)

• Implications of the number of automobiles in USA exceeding the number of licensed drivers

Documents

Urban Transport: Introduction - MIT OpenCourseWare · • Urban Transport Today • Urban Transport Policy • The Land Use-Transport link • Road congestion as a Policy Driver •